Originally posted by <beignets&coffee>:
bizymom can get the true answer for her situation and school and group status, directly from the horses mouth. The superintendent more than likely has a district legal person on staff and at her disposal and should know the answer off the top of her head (the legal person, that is).

There are grey areas but it is not rocket science, the district should know if the parent group falls under these laws or not. After all, it is the DISTRICT that approved of the parent group to operate at school in the first place, so they have already approved of their status and should know exactly what rules they must adhere to, vis a vis open laws etc.

If I had Bizymoms question I would ask the super to confirm the situation with the legal person at the district level. And note it for future reference, in the policies and procdueres for the parent group, the laws that should be adhered to, if any.

I just wanted to add to this that our district is huge, and it would take several days and a few levels of beaurocracy to get a simple answer like this, so just asking the district may not be a rapid solution, though a good course of action.

[ 11-02-2006, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: CapeDad ]

Originally posted by Shawn:


Question if you didnt like a vendor in minutes for whatever mtg would you put negative comments or are all minutes from meetings happy and cheery- no negatives?

(Yes memebrship doesnt know a lot of things- that NEVER implies they dont need or want to know)

I'll assume this question was for me.

I hope the minutes are not happy or cheery -- just factual. Of course, we put in the minutes that a decision was made to not use a vendor. We leave out the specific verbal votes like "Hated it" "Sucks" and "Loser" and just report.

If there was a specific reason -- overpriced, not enough $$ for the effort -- that would go in, too.

As far as people wanting to know -- if they care enough about something, they come in and ask. We don't have secrets, except where privacy/gossipy issues exist.

I had someone agree to do a regular monthly task last year, and a month in asked if I caould cover. the second month, did not answer calls or e-mails regarding the task until it was too late to get someone else. I did it again. Now it's December and we are going full bore and I put a request for help with this task in my weekly e-mails, but no luck. I do it again. Same in January, and the original volunteer is MIA.

All members need to know is that we can use a little more help with this task, right? If someone asks, I'd just say "It didn't work out for her," or something like that. I would not say, "I tried repeatedly to contact her and she just would not return my calls."

I sure don't need to say at a meeting, "Since Ms. X apparently dropped of the face of the earth, there is an opportunity for someone to help with XXX."

Personally, I take the President role very seriously (too much sometimes) and I try very hard to maintain an atmosphere of professionalism in our group, including open communication with members. To me, reporting to members that the officers had to meet to discuss the XYZ committee is just asking for trouble. If anyone is paying attention, they'll read between the lines, and there is that gossip you were trying to avoid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by <click click>:
If you want openness and a freindly environment to reign, and steer clear of the click image, there should be no secrets, or the 'illusion' that some infos are off limits, or not required to record and /or made available upon request to those interested.

---

I stand by my opinion that not every discussion among officers has to be recorded/reported, which it sounds to me like this is saying. I also stand by my opinion that some things are on a need-to-know basis -- not things involving money or other concrete business, but things like personality conflicts/personal history that may be relevant, bad check history, family situations, sales solicitations (which might be held on to for sharing later), staff politics, administration plans leaders might be privy to that are not supposed to be announced yet. This is managerial data when shared among leaders, but plain old gossip if you're telling everyone.

I guess where it is confusing is that this was called a 'special meeting', which has all sorts of meaning attached to it.

My read of the first post was that the president may want to take action to make sure the committee's work gets done properly and wants the officer's opinions first. Why is this simple sharing of ideas subject to documentation? If it is, it was handled badly by the officers and the chair should have been present. But then, wouldn't the officers speak beforehand to make sure they were on the same page?

IMO, whichever officer is responsible for the committee should have continued to work with the chair unless the task or event is in jeopardy. At that point, talk to the officers for ideas, and then take it to the board for some sort of official action if warranted.

I should also add that most of the members of my group do not really seem to interested in any of our day-to-day business, as long as they get to volunteer at school once in a while. My opinions, and our group's processes and bylaws evolved from years of this sort of culture. Very few people have ever read minutes except at the beginning of meetings.

bizymom can get the true answer for her situation and school and group status, directly from the horses mouth. The superintendent more than likely has a district legal person on staff and at her disposal and should know the answer off the top of her head (the legal person, that is).

There are grey areas but it is not rocket science, the district should know if the parent group falls under these laws or not. After all, it is the DISTRICT that approved of the parent group to operate at school in the first place, so they have already approved of their status and should know exactly what rules they must adhere to, vis a vis open laws etc.

If I had Bizymoms question I would ask the super to confirm the situation with the legal person at the district level. And note it for future reference, in the policies and procdueres for the parent group, the laws that should be adhered to, if any.

I see your point, Shawn. I know you don't think any member deserves to be called out at a meeting for newbie mistakes or minor problems and also that no member deserves to be talked about but rather should be part of the process. How else do new members learn, right? I do know that the new member was included in the process. But stalemates happen and sometimes the leadership team needs to take over and make the decision.

I agree, too, that it only becomes a general meeting topic when all other avenues have been exhausted.

Back to bizymom9's original question, though - Did they violate their state's Open Meeting Act? I'm not an expert but I don't think they did.

Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.

Common sense and decency says (to me) the chairperson should have been invited to attend the meeting (absent any record or accountabilities of the meeting).

But as you say, not all the info is presented here.

The measure of a person's integrity is what they do when they think they can get away with it. Anonymous